Originally Posted by
YesNo
There are at least three things that I don't accept: (1) determinism, (2) randomness and (3) physical constants. The reason is because they are all properties of mathematical models and quantum physics has undermined the first two. Within the models we can have determinism, randomness and constants. They make the models simpler to use for calculations and this is where their use value lies.
I actually don't believe in "intelligent design". It assumes the universe is a deterministic machine that needs a designer to build it, wind it up and let it run down. I don't see the universe as a machine. This comes from my rejection of mathematical models as proxies for reality.
This rejection of an intelligent designer does not mean that I reject "cosmic consciousness", "transcendent consciousness" or other concepts of "God". I don't think the universe can exist right here right now without such transcendent reality sustaining it, but this has nothing to do with "design".
When theists argued for a conscious designer in the 19th century they were trying to make an argument that those who believed in mathematical determinism would be able to understand. It was a mistake to go down the road of determinism as far as they did.
The concept of "emergent properties" is also important. At the moment, I don't believe in them. There are strong and a weak emergent property theories. The strong form would allow consciousness to emerge from unconsciousness. I think this is ridiculous, but I will leave it to those who promote ideas like panpsychism, such as Thomas Nagel, to argue against it.
I am also opposed to weak emergent properties which people who support panpsychism may not be. This means that I favor a non-reductionist view of reality (although reductionist models may have use-value in simplifying calculations leading to useful predictions).
If one believes in even a weak form of emergent properties one then needs a way for this emergence to occur. I agree with you that "randomness and thirteen point seven billion years are too little for all that has come to be". How more complicated forms arose from simpler forms needs to be explained beyond a simple faith that it must have happened that way. One of the reasons I like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields is he tries to provide such an explanation using modern field concepts. Maybe Sheldrake will convince me that weak emergent properties are possible.
I agree.
I like the way you describe God as not currently being "upfront in your face". I have no religion to promote, and some specific religions annoy me, but if transcendent consciousness really does sustain the universe then not seeing that transcendent consciousness "upfront in your face" may be a sign that the theories one has about reality are wrong.
The reason I don't think there are meaningless universes is because I don't think a universe can exist--at all--without consciousness. In other words, there is no unconscious matter out there out of which a universe could be constructed or designed. That means there is nothing out of which one can construct a meaningless universe.
Randomness seems to me to be one cognitive dissonance response to uncertainty. It allows one to continue pretending that things can change without consciousness being involved. However, the uncertainty of quantum physics need not have a uniform distribution. Therefore, generally that uncertainty is not random.
Olber's paradox was confirmed with evidence supporting the big bang. What Olber's paradox reminds us today is that if the big bang did not occur and if the universe were infinite, then life could not exist.